CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[Dahobbs 18,183]

3 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

He's probably right.  If you lump him into the 75-85 group current hospitalizations are at like 4/10,000.

I think you're really bad at math and/or statistics. Or maybe less than 100,000 have been hospitalized in the US and 800,000 haven't died. 

[Poolflood 845]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I think you're really bad at math and/or statistics. Or maybe less than 100,000 have been hospitalized in the US and 800,000 haven't died. 

Well it is on the high side for CDC data.  But who trusts those fuckers - amiright?  

[tigol 2,466]

13 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

Well it is on the high side for CDC data.  But who trusts those fuckers - amiright?  

No.

[Poolflood 845]

2 minutes ago, tigol said:

No.

Oh, well there you go!  Look my dad's about the same age.  He's been triple vaxed and in generally good health but I certainly worry about him.  If you have different statistics I would like to see them.

[tigol 2,466]

10 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

Oh, well there you go!  Look my dad's about the same age.  He's been triple vaxed and in generally good health but I certainly worry about him.  If you have different statistics I would like to see them.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.  Was your CDC remark sarcasm?

[Poolflood 845]

5 minutes ago, tigol said:

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.  Was your CDC remark sarcasm?

That Bookman's dad has a very small chance of serious effects from covid.  Looked up recently for my dad.

[Dahobbs 18,183]

43 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

Well it is on the high side for CDC data.  But who trusts those fuckers - amiright?  

What data are you referring to? I'm confident you are either misunderstanding or miscalculating something. Again, if the hospitalization rate for the general population were as you say, then if every person in the US was infected, you'd expect 100,000 hospitalizations. So your number is clearly wrong for the general population, much less for the elderly population. 

Edited January 2, 2022 by Dahobbs

[jimmyjazz 46,967]

1 hour ago, Poolflood said:

He's probably right.  If you lump him into the 75-85 group current hospitalizations are at like 4/10,000.

Link?

[Dahobbs 18,183]

23 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

Oh, well there you go!  Look my dad's about the same age.  He's been triple vaxed and in generally good health but I certainly worry about him.  If you have different statistics I would like to see them.

Triple vaxed and a single j&j vaccination are not the same thing. 

[Poolflood 845]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Link?

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/covid19_3.html

[hookemATL 12,228]

He pointed out that j&j single vaccine was the only one he had taken, and that it had proven to be the least effective overall. Also indicated his age and comorbitities. You essentially responded “meh fuck it, nbd. Don’t trust the cdc.”  Forgive us if we are wary of this disingenuous schlock. 

[Poolflood 845]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Triple vaxed and a single j&j vaccination are not the same thing. 

You're correct.  And if all hospitalizations for the age group are unvaccinated or j&j then I guess the number would be 4/1000?

[Poolflood 845]

5 minutes ago, hookemATL said:

He pointed out that j&j single vaccine was the only one he had taken, and that it had proven to be the least effective overall. Also indicated his age and comorbitities. You essentially responded “meh fuck it, nbd. Don’t trust the cdc.”  Forgive us if we are wary of this disingenuous schlock. 

I didn't mean to come across as flippant.  

[jimmyjazz 46,967]

Looks to me that the most recent weekly hospitalization rate for 75-84 is 16+ per 100,000.  The cumulative hospitalization rate is over 2,500 per 100,000.

[Dahobbs 18,183]

13 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/covid19_3.html

You understand that those aren't rates per infection but rather the ratio of hospitalizations over the entire population? The rates for infection are a lot higher. 

The data you are looking at are designed to identify surges, not calculate severity of infections. 

Edited January 2, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Poolflood 845]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You understand that those aren't rates per infection but rather the ratio of hospitalizations over the entire population? The rates for infection are a lot higher. 

The data you are looking at are designed to identify surges, not calculate severity of infections. 

I believe it's rate of hospitalizations for that age group.  And it's significantly "better" to get omicron than delta for that age group as hospitalizations are a smaller percentage. 

 

[Dahobbs 18,183]

7 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

I believe it's rate of hospitalizations for that age group.  And it's significantly "better" to get omicron than delta for that age group as hospitalizations are a smaller percentage. 

 

Yes, it's rates for the population, as in the percentage of folks in that age group currently hospitalized for covid. It provides weekly numbers so that you can identify surges in infections. It doesn't mean that if you get infected you have that percentage chance of needing to be hospitalized. That number is a lot higher. You're misunderstanding the data.

Edited January 2, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Poolflood 845]

32 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Looks to me that the most recent weekly hospitalization rate for 75-84 is 16+ per 100,000.  The cumulative hospitalization rate is over 2,500 per 100,000.

I assumed a lag for recent data - hence the 4/10,000 from a month ago.  If you go with cumulative wouldn't that skew number as the original virus and delta hit the elderly harder?  

[Dahobbs 18,183]

1 minute ago, Poolflood said:

I assumed a lag for recent data - hence the 4/10,000 from a month ago.  If you go with cumulative wouldn't that skew number as the original virus and delta hit the elderly harder?  

Again, you don't understand what numbers you're looking at. You'd need to look at hospitalizations over cases. You're looking at hospitalizations over the whole population.

And, yes, Omicron has been less severe, although the data are mixed as whether that is just because folks are vaccinated or previously infected as opposed to any reduction in severity for the newly infected. 

[Poolflood 845]

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, it's rates for the population, as in the percentage of folks in that age group currently hospitalized for covid. It provides weekly numbers so that you can identify surges in infections. It doesn't mean that if you get infected you have that percentage chance of needing to be hospitalized. That number is a lot higher. You're misunderstanding the data.

So bookman's dad is part of the population.  High estimate of hospitalization?  1%? 4%?

[Sawbonz 28,081]

2 hours ago, Bookman said:

My father thinks if he catches Omicron is will "only be a cold." He had one J&J shot last May. 

For omicron he’s probably correct

[Dahobbs 18,183]

7 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

For omicron he’s probably correct

Assuming omicron is actually less severe as opposed to merely reinfecting the previously infected and vaccinated. 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/omicron-cases-less-likely-to-require-hospital-treatment-studies-show/

Quote

The reduction in severe illness was likely to stem from Omicron’s greater propensity, compared with other variants, to infect people who have been vaccinated or previously infected, experts stressed, though the UK studies also hinted at a possible drop in intrinsic severity.

Even then, an 80% drop in hospitalization rate still leaves a decent chance at hospitalization for those in the older crowd, especially with only partial vaccination. 

[Poolflood 845]

18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, you don't understand what numbers you're looking at. You'd need to look at hospitalizations over cases. You're looking at hospitalizations over the whole population.

And, yes, Omicron has been less severe, although the data are mixed as whether that is just because folks are vaccinated or previously infected as opposed to any reduction in severity for the newly infected. 

I'm not sure what you're arguing?  Do you?

[Dahobbs 18,183]

18 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

So bookman's dad is part of the population.  High estimate of hospitalization?  1%? 4%?

Pre vaccination and Omicron, I think the hospitalization rates for that age group were north of 20% per infection. I think the most optimistic take of existing data is that his chances of hospitalization would be reduced by 80%, so call it a 4% chance maybe? Hard to say since I don't think we have good single dose J&J data on Omicron. 

[Dahobbs 18,183]

4 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

I'm not sure what you're arguing?  Do you?

I'm pointing out that you aren't understanding the data. You're confusing data on prevalence with data regarding the chance that an infection requires hospitalization. You can't get what you're looking for by dividing hospitalizations by the entire population (regardless of infection). You need to divide hospitalizations by number of infections. Because of that mistake, you're underestimating the chances of hospitalization. 

Hopefully it is still relatively low for an elderly gentleman with a single dose of J&J and infected with Omicron. But relatively low here means less than a 5% chance not the .04% chance you suggested earlier. 

[Poolflood 845]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm pointing out that you aren't understanding the data. You're confusing data on prevalence with data regarding the chance that an infection requires hospitalization. You can't get what you're looking for by dividing hospitalizations by the entire population (regardless of infection). You need to divide hospitalizations by number of infections. Because of that mistake, you're underestimating the chances of hospitalization. 

Hopefully it is still relatively low for an elderly gentleman with a single dose of J&J and infected with Omicron. But relatively low here means less than a 5% chance not the .04% chance you suggested earlier. 

I made some generalizations.   But 5% for a 75 yr old even with comorbidities doesn't seem supported.   That 75 year old is in the 75-84 year olds.  Current 7 day average is 16 in 100,000.  

[jimmyjazz 46,967]

1 minute ago, Poolflood said:

I made some generalizations.   But 5% for a 75 yr old even with comorbidities doesn't seem supported.   That 75 year old is in the 75-84 year olds.  Current 7 day average is 16 in 100,000.  

Ugh.  16 out of every 100,000 people in that age group are hospitalized, NOT 16 out of every 100,000 people in that age group who have covid.

[Dahobbs 18,183]

3 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

I made some generalizations.   But 5% for a 75 yr old even with comorbidities doesn't seem supported.   That 75 year old is in the 75-84 year olds.  Current 7 day average is 16 in 100,000.  

You're making the same mistake. That isn't what those stats mean. Read my posts. 

[Sawbonz 28,081]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Assuming omicron is actually less severe as opposed to merely reinfecting the previously infected and vaccinated. 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/12/omicron-cases-less-likely-to-require-hospital-treatment-studies-show/

Even then, an 80% drop in hospitalization rate still leaves a decent chance at hospitalization for those in the older crowd, especially with only partial vaccination. 

Anecdotal, but my dad, my aunt and her husband tested positive the week before Christmas. Dad had JnJ, they had Moderna, none boosted. All late 70’s w multiple comorbidities including obesity. Dad had head cold, no loss of smell/taste. Uncle had cough and fever/chills w loss of smell/taste. Aunt is on prednisone for autoimmune disease and felt the worst w fever up to 102. All are recovered 

Also anecdotal but with every previous surge by now the trauma centers I work at had all closed the ORs to elective case due to Covid cases overwhelming them. Knock wood that isn’t happening this time

[Dahobbs 18,183]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

Anecdotal, but my dad, my aunt and her husband tested positive the week before Christmas. Dad had JnJ, they had Moderna, none boosted. All late 70’s w multiple comorbidities including obesity. Dad had head cold, no loss of smell/taste. Uncle had cough and fever/chills w loss of smell/taste. Aunt is on prednisone for autoimmune disease and felt the worst w fever up to 102. All are recovered 

Also anecdotal but with every previous surge by now the trauma centers I work at had all closed the ORs to elective case due to Covid cases overwhelming them. Knock wood that isn’t happening this time

Glad to hear they recovered. Hopefully you're right and it is a good omen going forward. 

[Poolflood 845]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Ugh.  16 out of every 100,000 people in that age group are hospitalized, NOT 16 out of every 100,000 people in that age group who have covid.

 

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You're making the same mistake. That isn't what those stats mean. Read my posts. 

I responded to original post about a parent's stubbornness.  There's no guarantee he'll get the virus and if he does hospitalizations for that age group are small.

 

[jimmyjazz 46,967]

4 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

There's no guarantee he'll get the virus and if he does hospitalizations for that age group are small.

How do you know this?  What data are you using to support that assertion?

[Dahobbs 18,183]

14 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

 

I responded to original post about a parent's stubbornness.  There's no guarantee he'll get the virus and if he does hospitalizations for that age group are small.

 

Ugh. Again, if he gets infected, hospitalizations for that age group given omicron and his vaccination status are probably on the order of 5%. That's comparatively low to what it has been. But it isn't the absurdly low rates you've been suggesting based on your misunderstanding of the data. 

[Sawbonz 28,081]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Ugh. Again, if he gets infected, hospitalizations for that age group given omicron and his vaccination status are probably on the order of 5%. That's comparatively low to what it has been. But it isn't the absurdly low rates you've been suggesting based on your misunderstanding of the data. 

Where do you see 5/100 positives being hospitalized?

[Dahobbs 18,183]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Where do you see 5/100 positives being hospitalized?

For that age group, not the entire population. I'm just estimating that based on prior studies on hospitalization rates pre Omicron and the 80% reduction suggested by the more recent Omicron studies. If you have better data, by all means point me that way. 

[Dahobbs 18,183]

11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Where do you see 5/100 positives being hospitalized?

It also somewhat coincides with average number of new daily cases (120k) and new daily hospitalizations (7.8k), which would be 6.5%. Not a perfect comparison since it isn't controlled for age and since number of cases is surely significantly underreported. But I think those two factors kind of even out since we know it is much more severe for the elderly. 

[hornmpa96 2,651]

Another anecdote- MIL’s assisted living facility just tested its residents. 11 residents tested positive and 6 were ultimately hospitalized with all expected to recover. Fortunately MIL tested negative.

This is the only significant outbreak at her facility. I’m not sure how you could ever keep Omicron out of there without testing everyone at the door.

[Sawbonz 28,081]

21 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

For that age group, not the entire population. I'm just estimating that based on prior studies on hospitalization rates pre Omicron and the 80% reduction suggested by the more recent Omicron studies. If you have better data, by all means point me that way. 

I haven’t seen any numbers of percent positives being hospitalized that’s why I was asking if you had. Also apparently the newer numbers have a higher percentage of hospitalized positives that are hospitalized for something else and are being found by routine screening. With the spike in positives I would expect 5% hospitalizations in 70-80yo to overwhelm the system. I guess we will see in the next 2 weeks 

[Poolflood 845]

38 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

How do you know this?  What data are you using to support that assertion?

I've shown you mine, you show me yours.  My original post responded regarding a covid free 75 yr old.  You can assume he's going to get, but we're not there yet.  Of course he would be safer with a booster.  But I was talking about the case at hand.

[jimmyjazz 46,967]

Just now, Poolflood said:

I've shown you mine, you show me yours.  My original post responded regarding a covid free 75 yr old.  You can assume he's going to get, but we're not there yet.  Of course he would be safer with a booster.  But I was talking about the case at hand.

Is English not your first language?  I quoted this statement that you made:

"There's no guarantee he'll get the virus and if he does hospitalizations for that age group are small."

 

You don't have that data.  You have no idea if hospitalization rates for that portion of elderly people WHO HAVE COVID are small.  Just stop this absurdity.

[Dahobbs 18,183]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I haven’t seen any numbers of percent positives being hospitalized that’s why I was asking if you had. Also apparently the newer numbers have a higher percentage of hospitalized positives that are hospitalized for something else and are being found by routine screening. With the spike in positives I would expect 5% hospitalizations in 70-80yo to overwhelm the system. I guess we will see in the next 2 weeks 

You could probably pull the data underlying the South African study. The body presented everything as relative to pre Omicron, so I couldn't quickly identify rates. I'm using my phone, otherwise I would look myself. 

[Poolflood 845]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Is English not your first language?  I quoted this statement that you made:

"There's no guarantee he'll get the virus and if he does hospitalizations for that age group are small."

 

You don't have that data.  You have no idea if hospitalization rates for that portion of elderly people WHO HAVE COVID are small.  Just stop this absurdity.

Yes.  Now show me that the hospitalization rate.  Make a back of the envelope calculation.  

[jimmyjazz 46,967]

2 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

Yes.  Now show me that the hospitalization rate.  Make a back of the envelope calculation.  

I don't have that rate, and I'm uninterested in guesstimating it.

[Celery Man 21,076]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Is English not your first language?  I quoted this statement that you made:

"There's no guarantee he'll get the virus and if he does hospitalizations for that age group are small."

 

You don't have that data.  You have no idea if hospitalization rates for that portion of elderly people WHO HAVE COVID are small.  Just stop this absurdity.

 

5 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

Yes.  Now show me that the hospitalization rate.  Make a back of the envelope calculation.  

 

[Poolflood 845]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't have that rate, and I'm uninterested in guesstimating it.

Ballsy.  We won't know, as sawbonz mentioned, for a couple of weeks but we're seeing positive cases spike as hospitalizations decline.

 

[Dahobbs 18,183]

23 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

Ballsy.  We won't know, as sawbonz mentioned, for a couple of weeks but we're seeing positive cases spike as hospitalizations decline.

 

New admissions are increasing and have been for awhile.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#new-hospital-admissions

 

[Poolflood 845]

27 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

New admissions are increasing and have been for awhile.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#new-hospital-admissions

 

Ok, thank you.  I've been sourcing https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_5.html#virusTypeDiv

What am I missing?  

 

[Dahobbs 18,183]

25 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

Ok, thank you.  I've been sourcing https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_5.html#virusTypeDiv

What am I missing?  

 

"COVID-NET hospitalization data are preliminary and subject to change as more data become available. In particular, case counts and rates for recent hospital admissions are subject to lag. Lag for COVID-NET case identification and reporting might increase around holidays or during periods of increased hospital utilization. As data are received each week, prior case counts and rates are updated accordingly."

Basically, you're likely to have incomplete data for the more recent periods. These sort of trackers tend to always show a downturn for the most recent periods as a result. It gets revised upwards as more data comes in. 

[Poolflood 845]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

"COVID-NET hospitalization data are preliminary and subject to change as more data become available. In particular, case counts and rates for recent hospital admissions are subject to lag. Lag for COVID-NET case identification and reporting might increase around holidays or during periods of increased hospital utilization. As data are received each week, prior case counts and rates are updated accordingly."

Basically, you're likely to have incomplete data for the more recent periods. These sort of trackers tend to always show a downturn for the most recent periods as a result. It gets revised upwards as more data comes in. 

Thanks.  Seems to be a massive data lag esp considering they're both from the same website.  

[Poolflood 845]

32 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

"COVID-NET hospitalization data are preliminary and subject to change as more data become available. In particular, case counts and rates for recent hospital admissions are subject to lag. Lag for COVID-NET case identification and reporting might increase around holidays or during periods of increased hospital utilization. As data are received each week, prior case counts and rates are updated accordingly."

Basically, you're likely to have incomplete data for the more recent periods. These sort of trackers tend to always show a downturn for the most recent periods as a result. It gets revised upwards as more data comes in. 

Wow - 
Starting MMWR week 48, MD data are temporarily removed from weekly rate calculations.

or put that they pulled a chunk of data out and left a footnote, in bold, that I missed.